Inductionless or Limited Shock Testing Is Possible in Most Patients With Implantable Cardioverter- Defibrillators/Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillators

Safety threshold of R-wave amplitudes in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator

OBJECTIVE

A safety threshold for baseline rhythm R-wave amplitudes during follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) has not been established. We aimed to analyse the amplitude distribution and undersensing rate during spontaneous episodes of ventricular fibrillation (VF), and define a safety amplitude threshold for baseline R-waves.

METHODS

Data were obtained from an observational multicentre registry conducted at 48 centres in Spain. Baseline R-wave amplitudes and VF events were prospectively registered by remote monitoring. Signal processing algorithms were used to compare amplitudes of baseline R-waves with VF R-waves. All undersensed R-waves after the blanking period (120 ms) were manually marked.

RESULTS

We studied 2507 patients from August 2011 to September 2014, which yielded 229 VF episodes (cycle length 189.6±29.1 ms) from 83 patients that were suitable for R-wave comparisons (follow-up 2.7±2.6 years). The majority (77.6%) of VF R-waves (n=13953) showed lower amplitudes than the reference baseline R-wave. The decrease in VF amplitude was progressively attenuated among subgroups of baseline R-wave amplitude (≥17; ≥12 to <17; ≥7 to <12; ≥2.2 to <7 mV) from the highest to the lowest: median deviations -51.2% to +22.4%, respectively (p=0.027). There were no significant differences in undersensing rates of VF R-waves among subgroups. Both the normalised histogram distribution and the undersensing risk function obtained from the ≥2.2 to <7 mV subgroup enabled the prediction that baseline R-wave amplitudes ≤2.5 mV (interquartile range: 2.3-2.8 mV) may lead to ≥25% of undersensed VF R-waves.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline R-wave amplitudes ≤2.5 mV during follow-up of patients with ICDs may lead to high risk of delayed detection of VF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01561144; results.

The role of defibrillation testing

The induction and termination of ventricular fibrillation at the time of defibrillator insertion (defibrillation testing [DT]) has traditionally been an integral component of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. However, over the last 10 years, published series suggested a high rate of first-shock efficacy for clinical ventricular arrhythmias, even if no DT was done. Over the same time, several published reports and series have shown uncommon but serious complications related to DT. Throughout the world, there has been a steady decline in the proportion of patients receiving an ICD who undergo DT, which, in many regions, is less than 50%.

The Relationship Between Cardiac Vulnerability and Restitution Properties of the Ventricular Activation Recovery Interval

INTRODUCTION

The restitution of the action potential duration (APD) is an important contributor to ventricular fibrillation (VF) initiation by a single critically timed ectopic beat. We hypothesized that a steep slope of the activation recovery interval restitution curve was related to the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Fifty-four consecutive patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) implanted between April 2012 and July 2013 were included. At the implantation, pacing from the right ventricular (RV) coil to an indifferent electrode inserted in the ICD pocket was performed, and the unipolar electrograms from the RV coil were simultaneously recorded. We assessed the standard restitution by introducing extra-stimuli, while measuring the activation recovery interval (ARI). Our protocol for the vulnerability test consisted of delivering three 15 J shocks on the T-peak and within ±20 milliseconds of it. If VF was not induced by that procedure, a ULV of ≤15 J was defined. The relationship between the ULV and maximum slope of the restitution curve was analyzed. A restitution curve could finally be obtained in a total of 40 patients. The background characteristics were similar between the two groups. The maximum slope of the restitution curve was steeper in the ULV > 15 J group than ULV ≤ 15 J group (1.55 ± 0.45 vs. 0.91 ± 0.64, P < 0.05). A maximum slope exceeding 1.0 was the optimal point for discriminating patients with a ULV > 15 J from a ULV ≤ 15 J (sensitivity 61.5% and specificity 96.3%).

CONCLUSION

The maximum slope of the restitution curve was significantly related to the ULV. High defibrillation threshold patients could be detected by the ARI dynamics.

The relationship between defibrillation threshold and total mortality

BACKGROUND

The relationship between the defibrillation threshold (DFT) and total mortality is unclear.

METHODS

A university hospital prospectively maintained implantable defibrillator (ICD) database identified 508 patients who underwent ICD implantation and had DFT testing performed at implant. Patients were placed in one of three groups based on the implant DFT (high (≥20 J), moderate (19-11 J), or low DFT (≤10 J)).

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients had a high DFT, 216 had a moderate DFT, and 225 had a low DFT. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 0.25, 0.28, and 0.30 in the high, moderate, and low DFT groups, respectively, (p = 0.04). There were significantly more patients with a subcutaneous electrode in the high DFT group (p < 0.001), more patients taking amiodarone (p < 0.001), and more patients on oral anticoagulation (p = 0.04). There were a total of 140 deaths during the follow-up period (mean 3.2 ± 1.7 years). There were 24 deaths in the high DFT group (35.8%), 62 in the moderate DFT group (28.7%), and 54 in the low DFT group (24.0%) (p = 0.05). Implant DFT was a significant predictor of mortality (p = 0.01), as was age, LVEF (p < 0.001), CAD (p = 0.01), amiodarone use (p = 0.02), and hematoma at implant (p = 0.01). An elevated DFT was an independent predictor of mortality after controlling for all significant univariate variables (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

A high-implant DFT predicts an adverse prognosis, even when an adequate ICD safety margin is present.

Significance of intraoperative testing in right-sided implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Background

Implantation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) from the left pectoral region is the standard therapeutical method. Increasing numbers of system revisions due to lead dysfunction and infections will consecutively increase the numbers of right-sided implantations. The reliability of devices implanted on the right pectoral side remains controversially discussed, and the question of testing these devices remains unanswered.

Methods

In a prospectively designed study all 870 patients (60.0±14 years, 689 male) who were treated with a first ICD from July 2005 until May 2012 and tested intraoperatively according to the testing protocol were analyzed. The indication for implantation was primary prophylactic in 71.5%. Underlying diseases included ischemic cardiomyopathy (50%), dilative cardiomyopathy (37%), and others (13%). Mean ejection faction was 27±12%. Implantation site was right in 4.5% and left in 95.5%.

Results

Five patients supplied with right-sided ICD (13%, p = 0.02 as compared to left-sided) failed initial intraoperative testing with 21 J. 3 patients were male. The age of the patients failing intraoperative testing with right-sided devices appeared higher than of patients with left-sided devices (p = 0.07). The ejection fraction was 28±8%. All patients reached a sufficient DFT ≤ 21 J after corrective procedures.

Conclusion

Implantation of ICDs on the right side results in significantly higher failure rate of successful termination of intraoperatively induced ventricular fibrillation. The data of our study suggest the necessity of intraoperative ICD testing in right-sided implanted ICDs.

Shock or no shock - a question of philosophy or should intraoperative implantable cardioverter defibrillator testing be recommended?

OBJECTIVES

Implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with a high risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias is a standard therapy. The development of new ICD leads, shock algorithms, high-energy defibrillators and rapid energy supply has improved the devices. Nevertheless, the discussion regarding 'shock or no shock' to test the system intraoperatively has not silenced yet.

METHODS

In this study, all 718 patients (60.0 ± 14.2 years old, 570 male) who were treated with a first ICD at our institution since 2005 were analysed. The indication for implantation was primarily prophylactic in 511 patients (71.3%). Underlying diseases included ischaemic cardiomyopathy (358 patients, 50%), dilated cardiomyopathy (270 patients, 37.7%) and others (12.3%). Mean ejection fraction was 27.4 ± 11.8%. Intraoperative ventricular fibrillation was induced with a T-wave shock or burst stimulation. The primary end-point was failing the initial intraoperative testing.

RESULTS

During the initial testing, 28 patients (3.9%) had a defibrillation threshold (DFT) >21 J. The mean age of these patients was 51 ± 14 years, ranging from 22 to 71 years, 20 were male, and the ejection fraction was 23.8 ± 11.8%. The indication for ICD implantation was prophylactic in 13 patients. Twenty-one of the 28 patients suffered from dilated cardiomyopathy, whereas seven patients had ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Twenty-four ICDs were implanted on the left side and four on the right side. None of the patients had been treated with amiodarone at the time of implantation. All patients achieved a sufficient DFT ≤ 21 J by changing the ICD leads, device repositioning and/or optimizing the shock configuration.

CONCLUSIONS

The standard of care intraoperative ICD testing remains necessary.

Prolonged burst as a new method for cardioverter-defibrillator testing

AIM

To find out whether it is possible to anaesthetize patients safely without analgesia and sedation, using burst pacing prolonged until the patient becomes unconscious.

METHODS

One hundred and four patients undergoing implantation or reimplantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator were included. Patients randomized into Group B underwent prolonged burst pacing without analgesia and sedation. Patients in Group T underwent a T-wave shock under analgesia and sedation. Blood samples for measurement of serum neuron-specific enolase were taken before surgery and 6, 24, and 48 h after the procedure.

RESULTS

From the 104 patients, 51 were randomly assigned to Group B and 53 to Group T. Four patients from Group B were switched to Group T (ventricular fibrillation not induced by burst pacing). The clinical characteristics of both groups were similar. The mean total time of cardiac arrest was significantly longer in Group B (23.0 ± 4.4 s, median 22.7) vs. Group T (10.3 ± 3.0 s, median 10.0), P < 0.0001 (Mann-Whitney U-test). The effectiveness of both induction methods was similar (92.1% in Group B and 100% in Group T). The mean neuron-specific enolase levels after 6, 24, and 48 h were similar in Groups B and T (13.1 ± 6.3 and 11.6 ± 5.8 mg/L, 14.5 ± 7.5 and 13.4 ± 6.0 mg/L, and 14.9 ± 5.9 and 12.2 ± 6.0 mg/L, respectively) as were these levels compared with baseline neuron-specificenolase levels (14.0 ± 5.9 and 13.4 ± 4.0 mg/L, respectively), P = NS for all.

CONCLUSION

Despite a longer time of total cardiac arrest, prolonged burst pacing appears to be a safe and effective method for induction of ventricular fibrillation during cardioverter-defibrillator testing, which enables omission of analgesia and sedation or general anaesthesia.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without anatomical reverse remodeling does not affect defibrillation threshold

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trials have documented beneficial reverse-remodeling effects with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of CRT with or without reverse anatomical remodeling of the left ventricle on defibrillation threshold (DFT) levels in a prospective and consecutive group of patients with class II-IV systolic heart failure.

METHODS

Study population consisted of 29 patients (14 women and 15 men; mean age 61±11 years old). All patients underwent baseline (within 24-hours of cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator [CRT-D] implantation) and 6-month follow-up DFT testing. Reverse anatomical remodeling of the left ventricle was defined as ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at the end of 6 months of follow-up compared to baseline.

RESULTS

Baseline, average DFT was 8.8±5.9 J. Left ventricular end-diastolic volume was the only predictor of baseline DFT level (P=0.02) among the baseline demographics. Safety margin of at least 10 J was achieved in all patients. Average DFT at the end of 6 months of biventricular pacing was 9.2±6.9 J. One patient (3.4%) failed to have a safety margin of 10 J. Reverse anatomical remodeling was observed in 14 (48%) patients and did not have any effect on DFT level. There were no complications related to DFT testings.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline average DFT in patients undergoing CRT-D was ≤10 J in our study. CRT-D with or without anatomical reverse remodeling does not affect DFT at the end of 6 months of follow-up. High DFT level at the end of 6 months of follow-up is rare (3.4%) among patients with current CRT-D devices.

Defibrillation threshold testing fails to show clinical benefit during long-term follow-up of patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implantation

BACKGROUND

The utility of defibrillation threshold testing in patients undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation is controversial. Higher defibrillation thresholds have been noted in patients undergoing implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-D). Since the risks and potential benefits of testing may be higher in this population, we sought to assess the impact of defibrillation safety margin or vulnerability safety margin testing in CRT-D recipients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 256 consecutive subjects who underwent CRT-D implantation between January 2003 and December 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. Subjects were divided into two groups based on whether (n= 204) or not (n= 52) safety margin testing was performed. Patient characteristics, tachyarrhythmia therapies, procedural results, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Baseline characteristics, including heart failure (HF) severity, were comparable between the groups. Four cases of HF exacerbation (2%), including one leading to one death, were recorded in the tested group immediately post-implantation. No complications were observed in the untested group. After a mean follow-up of 32 ± 20 months, the proportion of appropriate shocks in the two groups was similar (31 vs. 25%, P = 0.49). There were three cases of failed appropriate shocks in the tested group, despite adequate safety margins at implantation, whereas no failed shocks were noted in the untested group. Survival was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Defibrillation efficacy testing during implant of CRT-D was associated with increased morbidity and did not predict the success of future device therapy or improve survival during long-term follow-up.

An observational registry on efficacy and safety of the right ventricular outflow tract as a site for ICD leads: results of the EFFORT (EFFicacy Of Right ventricular outflow Tract as site for ICD leads) registry

BACKGROUND

Although pacing from the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) has been shown to be safe and feasible in terms of sensing and pacing thresholds, its use as a site for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads is not common. This is probably due to physicians' concerns about defibrillation efficacy. To date, only one randomized trial, involving 87 enrolled patients, has evaluated this issue.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this observational study has been to compare safety (primary combined end point: efficacy of a 14-J shock in restoring sinus rhythm, R wave amplitude >4 mV and pacing threshold <1 V at 0.5 ms) and efficacy (in terms of effectiveness of a 14-J shock in restoring sinus rhythm after induction of VF, secondary end point) of two different sites for ICD lead positioning: RVOT and right ventricular apex (RVA).

METHODS

The study involved 185 patients (153 males; aged 67 ± 10 years; range, 28-82 years). Site of implant was left to physician's decision. After implant, VF was induced with a 1-J shock over the T wave or--if this method was ineffective--with a 50-Hz burst, and a 14-J shock was tested in order to restore sinus rhythm. If this energy was ineffective, a second shock at 21 J was administered and--eventually--a 31-J shock followed--in case of inefficacy--by a 360-J biphasic external DC shock. Sensing and pacing thresholds were recorded in the database at implant, together with acute (within 3 days of implant) dislodgement rate.

RESULTS

The combined primary end point was reached in 57 patients in the RVOT group (0.70%) and in 81 patients in the RVA group (0.79%). The 14-J shock was effective in 159 patients, 63 in the RVOT group (77%) and 86 in the RVA group (83%). Both the primary and the secondary end points are not statistically different. R wave amplitude was significantly lower in the RVOT group (10.9 ± 5.2 mV vs. 15.6 ± 6.4 mV, p < 0.0001), and pacing threshold at 0.5 ms was significantly higher (0.64 ± 0.25 V vs. 0.52 ± 0.20 V, p < 0.01), but these differences do not seem to have a clinical meaning, given that the lower values are well above the accepted limits in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy and safety of ICD lead positioning in RVOT is comparable to RVA. Even if we observed statistically significant differences in sensing and pacing threshold, the clinical meaning of these differences is--in our opinion--irrelevant.

[Implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators. How much anesthesia is necessary?]

Updated cardiologic guidelines constitute the background for an extended spectrum of indications for the implantation of automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators (AICDs) and lead to an increasing number of operative implantations of AICDs. Moreover, during implantation of devices for cardiac resynchronization therapy the anesthesiologist is responsible for the most critically ill patients with the longest duration of surgery. As a result anesthesiologists face an increasing number of critically ill patients, whose management contributes to perioperative outcome. Automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators can be implanted either during general anesthesia, local anesthesia or during a combination of local anesthesia combined with deep conscious sedation accomplished by an anesthesiologist. Besides economic aspects there is an increasing demand for anesthesia with the least cardiovascular side effects and rapid recovery in the often seriously ill patient with preexisting limitations of cardiac and pulmonary functions. Accordingly procedure and anesthesia-associated risks are reviewed and an algorithm for anesthesia management is suggested.

Transient local injury current in right ventricular electrogram after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock predicts heart failure progression

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify an early marker of functional impairment after an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock as a predictor of heart failure progression.

BACKGROUND

The ICD population has substantial risk of death due to progressive pump failure.

METHODS

Near-field (NF) bipolar right ventricular (RV) electrograms (EGMs) during induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) and 10 s after rescue ICD shock were analyzed in 310 patients (mean age 59 +/- 14.5 years, 219 men [71%]) with structural heart disease, New York Heart Association functional class I to III, and implanted with a single- or dual-chamber Medtronic (Minneapolis, Minnesota) ICD for primary (245 patients, 79%) or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac arrest. A local injury current (LIC) on NF RV EGM was defined as a deviation of EGM potential > or =1 mV or > or =15% of the preceding R-wave peak-to-peak amplitude.

RESULTS

During mean follow-up of 29.3 +/- 15.0 months, the combined end point of death or hospitalization due to congestive heart failure (CHF) exacerbation was documented in 40 patients (12.9%, or 5.3% per person-year of follow-up). LIC was observed in 106 patients. In multivariate risk analysis, after adjustment for baseline prognostic factors (ejection fraction, history of atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus) and appropriate ICD shocks during follow-up, patients with observed LIC after induced VF rescue ICD shock at ICD implantation were more likely to die or to be hospitalized (hazard ratio: 2.69; 95% confidence interval: 1.41 to 5.14; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Transient LIC on bipolar NF RV EGM after induced VF rescue ICD shock is associated with increased risk of CHF progression, future hospitalizations due to CHF exacerbation, and subsequent heart failure death.

Canadian Registry of ICD Implant Testing procedures (CREDIT): current practice, risks, and costs of intraoperative defibrillation testing

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the proper role of defibrillation testing (DT) at the time of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) insertion.

METHODS

A prospective registry was conducted at 13 sites in Canada between January 2006 and October 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To document the details of DT, the reasons for not conducting DT, and the costs and complications associated with DT.

RESULTS

DT was conducted at implantation in 230 of 361 patients (64%). DT was more likely to be conducted for new implants compared with impulse generator replacements (71% vs 32%, P = 0.0001), but was similar for primary and secondary prevention indications (64% vs 63%, P = NS). Among patients not having DT, the reason(s) given were: considered unnecessary (44%); considered unsafe, mainly due to persistent atrial fibrillation (37%); lack of an anesthetist (20%); and, patient or physician preference (6%). When performed, DT consisted of a single successful shock > or = 10J below maximum device output in 65% of cases. A 10J safety-margin was met by 97% of patients, requiring system modification in 2.3%. Major perioperative complications occurred in 4.4% of patients having DT versus 6.6% of patients not having DT (P = NS). ICD insertion was $844 more expensive for patients having DT (P = 0.16), largely due to increased costs ($28,017 vs $24,545) among patients having impulse generator replacement (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

DT was not performed in a third of ICD implants, usually due to a perceived lack of need or relative contraindication.

[Single- and dual-chamber ICDs: Are there still significant differences compared to pacemakers with regard to implantation and follow-up?]

Due to bulky generator size, abdominal pocket preparation and epicardial defibrillator lead placement, cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation was initially an extensive surgical intervention, which had to be performed in the operating room by cardiac surgeons under general anesthesia. The development of transvenously applicable endocardial defibrillator leads rendered thoracotomy unnecessary. The decrease in generator size enabled pectoral implantation. As a consequence of the simplified surgical procedure, implantation by cardiologists or electrophysiologists in the catheterization laboratory under local anesthesia and brief deep sedation with preserved spontaneous respiration was made possible. As a result, the implantation techniques of ICDs and pacemakers are converging. The present article illustrates the still existing significant differences between ICD and pacemaker treatment with regard to implantation and follow-up.

Problems with implantable cardiac device therapy

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in patients who have left ventricular dysfunction; however, they are associated with numerous problems at implant and during follow-up. The diagnosis and management of these problems is usually straightforward, but more difficult problems may include the management of patients who have elevated energy requirements to terminate ventricular fibrillation or of those who have postoperative device infections. Long-term issues in ICD patients include the occurrence of inappropriate or frequent appropriate shocks. ICD generators and leads are more prone to failures than are pacing systems alone; management of patients potentially dependent on "recalled" devices to deliver life-saving therapy is a particularly complex issue. The purpose of this article is to review the diagnosis and management of these more troublesome ICD problems.

No benefit from defibrillation threshold testing in the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial)

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated whether defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation predicts clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation testing is often performed during insertion of ICDs to confirm shock efficacy. There are no prospective data to suggest that this procedure improves outcomes when modern ICDs are implanted for primary prevention of sudden death.

METHODS

The analysis included the 811 patients who were randomized to the ICD arm of the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial) and had the device implanted. The DFT testing protocol in SCD-HeFT was designed to limit shock testing in a primary prevention heart failure population.

RESULTS

Baseline DFT data were available for 717 patients (88.4%). All 717 patients had a DFT of < or =30 J, the maximum output of the device in this study. The DFT was < or =20 J in 97.8% of patients. There was no survival difference between patients with a lower DFT (< or =10 J, n = 547) and a higher DFT (>10 J, n = 170) (p = 0.41). First shock efficacy was 83.0% for the first clinical ventricular tachyarrhythmia event; there were no differences in shock efficacies when the cohort was subdivided by baseline DFT.

CONCLUSIONS

Low baseline DFTs were obtained in patients with stable, optimally treated heart failure during ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden death. First shock efficacy for ventricular tachyarrhythmias was high regardless of baseline DFT testing results. Baseline DFT testing did not predict long-term mortality or shock efficacy in this study.

Patient-tailored implantable cardioverter defibrillator testing using the upper limit of vulnerability: the TULIP protocol

AIMS

We evaluated the feasibility of the TULIP (Threshold test using Upper Limit during ImPlantation) protocol, which was designed to provide a confirmed, low defibrillation energy value during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation with only two induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) episodes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients (62 +/- 12 years, 86 male) from 13 clinical centres underwent an active can ICD implantation. A single coupling interval derived from electrocardiogram lead II during ventricular pacing was used for VF induction shocks at 13, 11, 9, and 6 J in a step-down manner until the upper limit of VF induction (ULVI) was determined. If ULVI >or=9 J, a defibrillation energy of ULVI + 4 J was tested. For ULVI <9 J, the defibrillation test energy was 9 J. In 79/98 patients (80.6%), two induced VF episodes were sufficient to obtain confirmed defibrillation energy of 11.1 +/- 3.3 J. The mean strength of the successful VF induction shock was 6.8 +/- 4.3 J, the coupling interval was 303 +/- 35 ms, and the number of delivered induction shocks until the first VF induction was 3.9 +/- 1.6.

CONCLUSION

TULIP is a safe and simple device testing procedure allowing the determination of confirmed, low defibrillation energy in most patients with two VF episodes induced at a single coupling interval.